of intrepidity even to rashness, which used to be the characteristick of the British nation. Polybius, who was at least as able a judge of the military as any man of that age, and who lived very near the time of the Hannibalick war (as he terms it) is loud in his praises of the Roman troops, whose infantry he prefers greatly to the Carthaginian mercenaries.[357] Nor does he once impute any of their defeats to the fault of their men, but invariably to the folly and incapacity of their commanders. Upon the whole, the great defect in the Carthaginian military institution consisted in the want of a national militia, which, as Polybius observes, was the reason of their employing foreign mercenaries. The capital defects in the Romans lay in that equality of power with which each consul was vested in the field, and the short duration of their command, as their office was only annual. Every battle which the Romans lost to Hannibal except the first, may be fairly ascribed to the former of these causes. The defeats of Trebia and Thrasymene were plainly occasioned by the jealousy of one of the consuls, lest the other should share with him in the glory of beating Hannibal; as the want of harmony, and difference of opinion between the two consuls, was the primary cause of the dreadful defeat at Cannæ. To the latter cause we may justly attribute the long duration of the Hannibalick war. When the great man, who entered Italy with no more than twenty thousand foot and six thousand horse, maintained his ground above sixteen years, without any assistance from Carthage, against the whole united force and efforts of the Romans, by the mere strength of his own extraordinary genius. For as every man, who had interest sufficient to obtain the consulship, was immediately vested with the command of an army, however qualified or not, so he was obliged to resign his command at the end of the year, before he had well time to be thoroughly acquainted with the true method of dealing with his enemy. Thus every new successive commander, amongst the Romans, had the same task to begin afresh at the opening of every campaign. I know that political writers ascribe this mistaken policy to that jealousy, and fear of lodging so much power in so few hands for any length of time, which is so natural to all republican governments. And that the office of dictator was contrived as a remedy against any abuse, or inconveniency, which might at any time arise from the consular power. But the event showed, that the remedy was much worse than the disease. Whilst publick virtue existed, the office of dictator was frequently useful. But when luxury had introduced corruption, the _pro tempore_ dictator soon came to be perpetual, and the perpetual dictator terminated in a perpetual and despotick emperor.